The framing wars continue and some very sensible people are falling into
the same trap that ensnared
Joshua Green. Today's example comes from Brad Plumer, who labels Howard Dean
a "madman" for saying that he wants to "make George Lakoff the Democrats' Frank
Luntz".
Says Brad:
[...] first you need to make the ground ripe. Otherwise, you're just
coming up with a goofy new name for something--which is why, notice, the
phrase "personal accounts" have never caught on.
So please, no Lakoff. Not yet. Figure out how to do all that other stuff
first. But depending on framing and framing alone will condemn the
Democrats to irrelevance for decades to come.
I challenge Brad to cite any statement by Dean in which he says that
Democrats should "depend on framing and framing alone." Of course that would be
a ridiculous idea. But Dean has never said that. Nor has Lakoff or anyone else
that I am aware of. In fact, the only ones who have said anything like that are
those who feel the need to mischaracterize proponents of framing. Dean and
Lakoff have repeatedly said that framing isn't enough. Why then do critics
choose to criticize them as if they are saying exactly the opposite?
Brad's underlying point is a good one: you need to build the foundation
("make the ground ripe") before you can strike with a good talking point. But
Lakoff has said much the same thing on many occasions. Framing is not the
be-all and end-all of what we are trying to accomplish. But it is a necessary
component and frankly, Democrats have been terrible at using the right
words to explain their ideas.
The Republican frames have worked because they have spent the last 30 years
seeding them throughout our culture ("We're from the government and we're here
to help you!"). Then, when they go on the air, they only have to say a couple of
words to activate the frame and 80% of their work is done. "Death Tax" worked as
a frame not simply because it was a magic phrase but precisely because it was
based on a long-term program to subconsciously program to respond to the phrase.
Brad seems to be arguing the same thing. But he also seems to think that
advocates of framing aren't aware of this.
I have yet to see a criticism of the new interest in framing that has not (1)
mischaracterized what framing proponents have said and (2) advocated, in
opposition to framing, positions that are actually at the heart of what framing
is all about. I have no problem with specific criticism of specific attempts at
framing (I myself have criticized Lakoff's "Nurturant Parent" model on more than
one occasion). But what Joshua Green, Brad Plumer and others are doing is making
blanket condemnations of the entire concept. It is disrespectful of our
intelligence for Joshua and Brad to think they need to step in and stop us
before we do something foolish.
Give us at least a little credit guys.